30 January 2012 3:46 PM

The Lost Veto

Two weeks before Christmas, Britain’s conservative media went into a collective swoon of admiration for David Cameron. He had ‘stood up to the EU’. He had ‘wielded the veto’. Suddenly, after years of rather embarrassing temporising, wriggling and retreating, and of shattering ‘cast-iron’ guarantees on referendums, the Mere Leader had become a new Thatcher. Not of course that Lady Thatcher was really ever the great champion of British independence that her worshippers believe her to have been. But let that pass.

I did try to point out here on 12th December (‘David Cameron’s Phoney War’) and again on 17th December (‘Don’t forget they cheered Chamberlain’s ‘Victory’ too’) that the triumph was not as advertised.

Unwelcome as these facts were, I explained that Mr Cameron had not wielded the veto, not least because there had been nothing to veto. I also pointed out that his action was greeted as a blessing by a senior aide of President Sarkozy, and didn’t much displease Berlin either.

But there’s no swoon like a media swoon. Perhaps it’s my Marxist-Leninist background in mass manipulation, but I have several times found myself (usually at party conferences) alone, or almost alone in the press room, being unhypnotised by some ‘great’ speech. Neil Kinnock’s attack on ‘Militant’, all Anthony Blair’s supposedly ‘superb’ speeches,(yuk) David Cameron’s ‘brilliant’ speech at the Tory conference in Blackpool, (can anyone remember what he said?) all left me yawning and unimpressed. The only really great speech of my lifetime was, I think, Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ oration, crammed with the thrilling cadences of the Authorised Version of the Bible and delivered by a master of the art of preaching. By comparison with that, these measly offerings were just straw.

Oddly enough, one of the few others who was immune to the Blair magic was Matthew Parris, and it was because we would sometimes exchange haggard looks of dismay at the mass adulation around us that I once invited him to lunch, in an attempt to form a small Club of the Undeceived. Alas, the relationship failed to blossom, as history records. Mr Parris (the moment reminded me of ‘The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers’ as modern Britain so often does) turned up one day looking exactly as before, but mysteriously converted into a loyal Cameroon. Maybe they’ll get me in the end, too. Don’t be fooled, if they do.

But once the line has been fixed (and see Peter Oborne’s bravely self-critical and revelatory remarks on this in my book ‘the Cameron Delusion’) it is almost impossible to resist.

And so, when the alleged ‘veto’ shrivelled into a yellowing heap of dust and bones, like ‘She Who Must be Obeyed’ when she steps for the second time into the flame in Rider Haggard’s wonderful book ( was it in ‘She’ or ‘Ayesha’, can anyone recall?), it was barely noticed. Gosh the European Court of Justice can after all be used to enforce limits on state spending. Gosh , the institutions of the EU can after all be used in this cause. This was the very thing Mr Cameron was said to have ‘vetoed’. In fact, last week he telephoned Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the EU Commission, to say that the United Kingdom will *not* block the plan. That is to say, there is no veto. There never was a veto, and now there certainly isn’t. We were told that in some mysterious way the Luxembourg Court’s powers (which apply to this country) have been watered down.

Well, any reader of Christopher Booker and Richard North’s ‘The Great Deception’ ( and anyone who hasn’t read it isn’t qualified to take part in discussions about the EU at all) will know what that sort of safeguard is worth. (NB I originally mistakenly posted the title as 'The Great Delusion', which is, as a contributor pointed out, mistaken. Apologies to those looking for the book, and to the authors).

And this colossal retreat (well, it was colossal if the veto was as big a deal as was originally claimed) was blamed, as all Mr Cameron’s liberal actions are, on the Liberal Democrats. ‘Nick Clegg Made Me Do It’ has become the Useless Tory Party’s equivalent of ‘The Dog Ate My Homework’.

Who really believes that Mr Cameron couldn’t simply say (if he wanted to to) to Mr Clegg ‘What are you going to do about it? Resign and break the coalition? Have an election?’ Mr Clegg would lose his own seat, his party would all but disappear and he would miss the chance of becoming Britain’s next EU Commissioner (a post I predict for him, soon after he leads his party out of the Coalition, in a supposedly bitter but in fact planned split that miraculously does not cause the government to fall, or lead to an election, in 2014).

The excuse is pitiful and unbelievable, so why does anyone believe it? As for the fabled ‘Tory Eurosceptic Right’ what are they going to do about it? Well, what do you think?

Why do people believe all this stuff? Why, because they choose to and want to (the reason people always believe things, as I keep saying).

Oh and by the way, another mention of the ‘Sunday Times’. In my edition of it, there’s a very curious event on page two. There’s a news item about the NHS. There’s a news item about bankers, carried over from page one. There’s a (very small) news item about Mr Cameron’s climbdown on the EU. There’s a news item about tax-cuts.

And in the middle of all these, without any accompanying text or headline that I can see, is a full-colour (though quite small) bar chart of the paper’s latest YouGov opinion poll, sitting there on its own, a bit like a weather chart.

I have never seen a poll displayed in this way. In my long-ago days as an industrial reporter Page Two was regarded as the place where good stories went to die, as they were unlikely to be followed up, or noticed by any but the most diligent readers. It was irreverently referred to as ‘The Elephants’ Graveyard’.

Oh, you’ll want to know what the poll said. It gave Labour(at 40%) a one-point lead over the Tories, put the Liberal Democrats at 8% and others at 13% . This isn’t significant in itself . But it does clash a bit with the accepted media belief that Mr Cameron has achieved a lead over Labour thanks to his ‘toughness’ over the EU etc. It is true that there were three other (rather unsurprising) surveys about people’s opinion on taxation. But the neighbouring story , on tax cuts, does not refer to them.

On Hitchens recommendation, I've just completed "The Great Deception", finding it fascinating and frightening in equal measure. Incredibly, I'd never heard of Jean Monnet before, yet this never-elected man needs to be a household name, taught about in schools.

Mr Hitchens,
Re: why do the "eurosceptics" continue to co-exist with Cameron ?
I think it is because they have a comfortable life; they really like being MP's, and Cameron says any boat rocking will bring down the coalition, and the eurosceptics will be out of office.
By definition, many tory MP's are not risk takers. Toryism is about not taking risks, especially if you are financially comfortable. So I don't expect theeurosceptics to take the huge risk of breaking up the Tory Party, while it gives them such huge personal rewards.
i suspect that the awful direction this country is falling in will not change until we experience a major national catastrophe; such as the one we narrowly averted in late 2007, when the banking system nearly went over a cliff. If we are lucky, it will be a medium sized catastrophe, from which a chastened and wiser people will claw themselves back. I am not wishhiong for such a catastrophe, since I and my family and friends will probably be amongst the losers.
The ruling classes in tghis country, including the media barons, need a huge personal wake-up call. I don't see any easy way for this to happen, only the way I have described above.

"I have a dream" is the only important/moving speech of your lifetime? I certainly agree that Martin Luther King's speech is brilliant and lifts the hairs on the back of the neck, but there is another speech from your lifetime that is nearer to home...

Hugh Gaitskell, October 1962? "The end of a thousand years of history" ring any bells?

>>> a post I predict for him, soon after he leads his party out of the Coalition, in a supposedly bitter but in fact planned split that miraculously does not cause the government to fall, or lead to an election, in 2014 <<<

However under this new act, I thought parliamentary terms were now fixed to five years-- therefore the govt can't call an election before 2015?

To whichever MP is reading this.................JUST GET BRITAIN OUT,.............Dont worry about the EU,..............thats a thing of the past..................before the EU crumbles into final meltdown...........GET BRITAIN OUT.
Mike ilett................Orkney.

There is something significant if Labour can only manage a 1% lead over the Tories after nearly two years and what we would assume to be Labour's natural supporters suffering the most in the current financial situation.
Liberals on 8%? That's pretty serious, for them. I'd say that Cameron is secretly, furtively intending to swallow the LibDems and show the bulk of their supporters that they might as well vote Tory as the way to power. Look at most of his policies, the LibDems can feel at home with him.

As usual our host is spot on regarding Cameron and his chicanery. I reckon even he couldn't believe how obtuse the media in general were in reporting his supposed veto defiance - following the man and not the ball so to speak.

Ever since the coalition came into being, I've spent quite a bit of time on the CIF section of the Guardian - which has highlighted the more interesting phenomena of its readership actually believing the Condems to be somehow baby eating Eurosceptics -yet somehow oblivious to the fact that every policy and action undertaken by the government has been positively pro-EU.

Cameron backed down on the EU budget, trashed our aircraft carriers so we're now reliant on his "foe" Sarkozy to defend our interests, (all part of an embryonic EU military I believe) contributed to the sovereign currency bailout funds (now to be done via the IMF), and has now agreed to allow the EU institutions to be used in forging an EU wide fiscal treaty. It just proves "there are none as so blind who will not see".

Cameron knows (as does Miliband & Clegg) that by making the necessary cuts to government spending (most of which are to be realised) will make him very unpopular and risks losing power. He also knows that to join the EURO his current policy of deficit reduction is a must, albeit independent of the treaty.

So once again, the partisan Europhiles are too stupid to see that he is doing his EU and their masters bidding, whilst similtaneously bleating on about the cuts. He has said as much that he himself won't take us in, but he also said he'd give us a cast-iron referendum too, didn't he ?

In all probability, he's preparing the way for a successor should he fail to regain office, and I think the Labour ranks (if not their supporters) know this, which is why they've dutifully fell into line over fiscal policy.

One thing is for sure, the Tories and the other two parties wish to take us into full EU integration, and if you like me wish to return and remain a fully independent country - a vote for none of the above is a must.

I must admit that the U-turn came far sooner that I expected though I was certain it would come sooner or later. I've also noticed that he seems to have lost patience with his critics, more or less saying, "I haven't done what you're accusing me of and, even if I have, I know best so shut up and let me get on with it". I suppose we now have an elected dictatorship that is answerable to no one.

The book you're thinking of is "She", which climaxes with Ayesha stepping into the lame of life a second time, and becoming old.
(Incidentally, although Haggard himself probably didn't realise it, the name, Ayesha actually means "living".

I was reminded today of what is increasingly looking like the imminent dissolution of Britain into a cluster of EU provinces when I saw an article in the National Post describing Martin McGuiness's calls for an Irish unification referendum by 2016, which I distinctly remember you predicting some time ago. What the Post didn't mention was that today is the 40th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" shootings, which I'm sure carries some perverse symbolic meaning to the IRA and Sinn Fein. What better way to honour their memory than by the launching of a campaign by ex-terrorists and murderers to harass and cajole the people of Northern Ireland into joining with a country that they don't really want to join and splitting with the country that most of them are perfectly happy to belong to, all in time for the centenary of a violent uprising (tastefully enough, they also managed to do it on the date of Gandhi's death. I wonder whether he would've approved of their tactics?)? Incidentally, this story was among the top headlines of the Post, a Canadian paper. I can't find it anywhere on the BBC website, which I thought would have it in more detail.

Actrions, unfortunately, don't speak louder than words. Several of my friends and family are Conservative voters. When I ask them to tell me one thing that differs under this current government from the previous Labour regime, they go, 'Eh, um, eh.' However, they will still vote Conservative because they like Cameron and think he's a Conservative. I feel like the mug who's asked to pick one of the three cups with the nut under it; whichever one I pick, I get the same result - a socialist!

When this great veto occurred I was wondering what it was about or why it mattered. All this talk of a two speed Europe [what was that about?], why are the buddies in Switzerland so cheery [aren't Greece and Portugal about to descend in to economic armageddon?].
How is the common man meant to understand what this all means and aren't Greece and Italy ruled by unelected groups or technocrats? Isn't that worth being concerned about? Why is Sarkozy so happy? What have the Tories actually done since the election except raise tuition fees and bail out EU banks? Does it matter what they do? Is there even any point in trying to ask?

How about President Reagan's June 12, 1987 speech at the Berlin Wall where he challenged, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? It certainly went against much conventional thinking at the time that the U.S. should be nicer to the USSR in order to avoid nuclear war and avoid dangerous rhetoric. While Gorbachev didn't tear down the wall, he let others tear it down by not sending in troops like two of his predecessors did , Khrushchev in 1956 with Hungary and Brezhnev in 1968 with Czechoslovakia.

My personal favorite speech of all time is not even political. On July 4, 1939, Lou Gehrig, the longtime first baseman of the New York Yankees, delivered his brief farewell address at Yankee Stadium. Despite being diagnosed with a horrible disease that ended his professional career and then took his life nearly two years later, Gehrig reflected on the good things in his life such as family, teammates, and the fans who loved him. The speech has been parodied to death (including by me), but it showed how a great man can leave the stage in dignity and triumph.

This is just a general comment, not relevant to the post per se. I regard myself a 'liberal' on the political spectrum, but having read your columns since moving to the UK a couple of years ago I find myself equally engaged by the troubling issues you raise in your columns. Thank goodness (am I allowed to say God in a public forum?) that there is a voice like yours out there. Keep writing!

I wonder how people came to a descision on Europe before that Booker and North " The Great Deception "
I find I got the idea that The European Behemoth all by myself . What happened since just re-enforces my prejudices. So the need to understand the minutiae of this collosus of deciet and bad law, is just frivolous to the overall debate.
Unless one cannot have a view without quotations from others. Then of course one must.

I suggest the fact of the matter here is The Government (whether it was Heath or Wilson who did the dirty deed is a matter of frivolous debate) sold the farm a long time ago. They just haven't got round to being honest to the farmhands about it. So The Conservative Government goes through a charade to keep the right of its ranks on side. It's a pantomime. Government(at least since the 60's) is a pantomime. Only the terminally dull or naive assume otherwise. We all like to feel better by telling ourselves that our kind of government is best.
I was extremely politically active in my youth. I don't vote anymore. 1. If voting actually changed anything you wouldn't be allowed to do it. 2. No matter who I vote for I seem to end up with the The Government.
I hate the EU. But struggle to see a way out. UKIP are a shambles, and even if they won I fear we may be to far down the road to stop the juggernaut.
Come quickly Lord Jesus!! Amen!

1) "[The poll] gave Labour(at 40%) a one-point lead over the Tories, put the Liberal Democrats at 8% and others at 13%"

As Peter Hitchens is fond of saying, polls are used to shape opinion, not to reflect it. It might be worth noting that the president of YouGov is married to Baroness Ashton, the EU's overall foreign minister. That maybe why Ukip's figures (whatever you think of the party) are not separated out from "others", even if - and probably especially if - they prove rather healthier than the Lib Dems'.

2) You've elided the title of one of your books with that Booker and North's "The Great Deception". But you're right, it is excellent. (If anyone would like a free anti-EU book, they will find a pdf of the very good "Europe on 387m Euros A Day" at the website of its publisher, St Edward's Press.)

3) "Not of course that Lady Thatcher was really ever the great champion of British independence that her worshippers believe her to have been. But let that pass."

Why let it pass? It's important that people don't think that the Tories ever stood up to the EEC/EC/EU. Thatcher had many qualities but euroscepticism cannot be included among them. With a torrent of lies but without a manifesto pledge, the Tories led this nation into the EEC in 1973. Under a new leader, they campaigned for a yes to stay in the EEC in the 1975 referendum. The blessed Margaret - for it was she in the EEC-flags jumper who had urged that vote for continued serfdom - then guillotined debate on the Single European Act, the first half of two treaties that created the monstrous EU, a decade later. In 1990 she took us into the euro's equally idiotic forerunner, the ERM.

Dave is very low in most people's opinion but he hasn't yet done half as much EU-related damage in six years as Tory leader as she managed in 15. But it looks as if he's really trying. As Gaitskell said in 1962, "The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union." Has anything changed in 50 years?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.